Will AI replace Aerospace engineers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 86 official task statements scored for Aerospace engineers (United Kingdom, SOC 2126), 36% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 44 out of 100 (range 38–51, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Aerospace engineers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain reports” (93/100, very high); “Summarise scientific and engineering principles in an easy to understand manner” (85/100, very high); “Compile test reports and manage test data and results for development and verification” (81/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Aerospace engineers” stay human?

About 42% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Perform regular checks and maintenance on equipment to ensure operational functionality” (0/100, minimal); “Inspect products to ensure they meet specifications” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise the assembly of airframes according to design specifications” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Aerospace engineers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 36% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 42% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Aerospace engineers calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 86 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Aerospace engineers

testing and evaluating theoretical designs to ensure compliance with aviation standards, visualising projects with CAM systems and overseeing repair and maintenance programmes. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

This job is splitting in two: applying mathematical modelling software to solve complex engineering problems is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and conducting tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety is work it can't touch.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 36%
changing shape: 21%
staying human: 42%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 44 out of 100 (38–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 86 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for aerospace engineers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Which half fills your week decides your exposure. The ledger below shows which rows you can move toward.

Your week, as this page understands it

Aerospace engineers research develop and design aircraft, spacecraft and their components. The job title says “aerospace engineers”. The real job is the part underneath: conducting tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But aerospace engineers is not one task. It is 86 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conducting tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 36%
changing shape: 21%
staying human: 42%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

2 rows are marked low confidence, so treat them as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
22 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

29 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Analysing engineering data to determine feasibility and cost of aerospace products
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Analyse engineering data to determine feasibility and cost of aerospace products.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Feasibility and cost analysis works from figures and documents, which software analyses and writes up well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying mathematical modelling software to solve complex engineering problems
This is reading one thing and writing another: mathematical modelling software in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Apply mathematical modelling software to solve complex engineering problems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Setting up and running engineering models is well-documented computational work software increasingly does itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing aerospace engineering designs to reduce negative environmental impacts
This is reading one thing and writing another: aerospace engineering designs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Review aerospace engineering designs to reduce negative environmental impacts.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing designs against environmental criteria is document analysis with a written recommendation, well suited to software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing the safety and environmental impact of materials
This is reading one thing and writing another: the safety in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Assess the safety and environmental impact of materials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Material safety and environmental assessment works from published data sheets and standards, which software searches and summarises well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

17 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Developing design criteria for aeronautical products
The software now makes the first pass at design criteria, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Develop design criteria for aeronautical products, including testing methods and production costs.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Design criteria draw on published standards, but deciding what a specific product must meet stays expert work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning investigation of technical problems with aircraft
The software now makes the first pass at investigation of technical problems, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Plan investigation of technical problems with aircraft.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 59 out of 100 (52–66 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Planning a technical investigation is structured written work drawing on established methods.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Designing or modifying aerospace systems to reduce emissions like nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide
The software now makes the first pass at aerospace systems, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Design or modify aerospace systems to reduce emissions like nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 44 out of 100 (37–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Emissions-reducing design uses published principles, but the actual engineering changes need experienced designers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Staying human

40 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Conducting tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety
This work happens in the physical world: tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Conduct tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Testing aircraft components means putting real hardware in a rig, and aviation approval rules expect nominated engineers to verify results.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing projects within agreed timescales and budget
The value here is that a specific person handles projects within agreed timescales and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Manage projects within agreed timescales and budget.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Tracking budgets and timescales is easily supported, but keeping a project on track depends on the people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing aerospace research and development programmes
The value here is that a specific person handles aerospace research and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Oversee aerospace research and development programmes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a research programme is planning and decision-making, but it depends on leading people and internal knowledge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 76 tasks

Maintaining reports
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Maintain reports.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping reports up to date is structured paperwork software already produces.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Summarising scientific and engineering principles in an easy to understand manner
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: scientific in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2126/02
Source: “Summarise scientific and engineering principles in an easy to understand manner.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 85 out of 100 (81–89 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Explaining established science and engineering in plain language is one of the things software does best.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Compiling test reports and managing test data and results for development and verification
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: test reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Compile test reports and manage test data and results for development and verification.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling test data into structured reports is exactly the kind of documentation software produces reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing technical reports on engineering projects to document findings and recommendations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 2126/01
Source: “Write technical reports on engineering projects to document findings and recommendations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up engineering findings and recommendations from project data is drafting work software does to a high standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting repetitive calculations to ensure aircraft safety and performance
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: repetitive calculations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 55 · 2126/02
Source: “Conduct repetitive calculations to ensure aircraft safety and performance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Repetitive safety and performance calculations are exactly what computers do faster and more consistently than people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collating information and interpreting data for specific projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2126/01
Source: “Collate information and interpret data for specific projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Gathering and interpreting project data is document and number work that software handles quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing technical and project documentation
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical and project documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Manage technical and project documentation for control, monitoring, verification, and reporting during a space project.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Managing project documents, versions and traceability is administrative work software organises well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Selecting techniques, components and materials suitable for the mission environment, such as vacuum-compatible or radiation-resistant materials
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: techniques, components and materials suitable in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Select techniques, components, and materials suitable for the mission environment, such as vacuum-compatible or radiation-resistant materials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Material and component selection works from published property databases, which software searches and compares quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Testing prototypes using computer aided design
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: prototypes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2126/01
Source: “Test prototypes using computer aided design (CAD) software.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Testing a prototype inside design software is screen work with well documented methods.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Helping develop project budgets and timetables for IT and engineering projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: develop project budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Help develop project budgets and timetables for IT and engineering projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Budgets and timetables follow familiar formats tools draft well, though realistic figures need project experience.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing collected data to optimise aircraft performance
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: collected data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2126/02
Source: “Analyse collected data to optimise aircraft performance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analysing flight and test data to find performance gains is computational work software is very good at.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing concepts and specifications for new projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: concepts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2126/02
Source: “Develop concepts and specifications for new projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing project concepts and specifications is structured drafting from existing information.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing budgets for projects to ensure technical accuracy and financial control
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2126/03
Source: “Develop budgets for projects to ensure technical accuracy and financial control.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building a project budget from cost data and past projects is spreadsheet work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing processes for accurate bulk reproduction of technical materials
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: processes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2126/03
Source: “Develop processes for accurate bulk reproduction of technical materials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Designing a repeatable process for producing technical material is documented, procedural work software drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying and defining requirements for spacecraft subsystems
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: requirements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Identify and define requirements for spacecraft subsystems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 68 out of 100 (61–75 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Requirements writing follows well-established methods, though the mission specifics come from inside the project.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing inputs on vibration test levels and interpreting test data
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: inputs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 55 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Provide inputs on vibration test levels and interpret test data.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 68 out of 100 (61–75 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Vibration levels and test data follow established standards and analysis methods that software applies well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Writing technical reports for engineering and management personnel
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 55 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Write technical reports for engineering and management personnel.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Technical reports follow familiar structures and draw on data already held digitally, so software drafts them well with an engineer's edit.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Testing and evaluating theoretical designs to ensure compliance with aviation standards
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: theoretical designs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 95 · 2126/03
Source: “Test and evaluate theoretical designs to ensure compliance with aviation standards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking a design against published aviation standards is documented comparison work software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Generating detailed specifications to support aircraft system development
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: detailed specifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2126/03
Source: “Generate detailed specifications to support aircraft system development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Detailed specifications are structured technical documents drawn from established requirements, which software drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Contributing to technology readiness level assessments for space programmes
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: technology readiness level assessments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Contribute to technology readiness level assessments for space programmes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Readiness assessments follow a published scale and documented evidence, so drafting them is well within software's reach.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing engineering project resources efficiently
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project resources in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2126/01
Source: “Manage engineering project resources efficiently.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Resource planning runs on schedules and cost data already in project systems, which software can optimise quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supporting the project system engineer in requirements management
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the project system engineer in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Support the project system engineer in requirements management.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Requirements administration is structured document work software supports well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating and approving selection of vendors by studying past performance or new advertisements
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: selection of vendors in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Evaluate and approve selection of vendors by studying past performance or new advertisements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing suppliers on past performance and documentation is analysis and write-up software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Requesting and reviewing project updates to ensure deadlines are met
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project updates in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Request and review project updates to ensure deadlines are met.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Chasing updates and checking them against the plan is routine coordination software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning projects to ensure technical accuracy and innovation
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: projects in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2126/03
Source: “Plan projects to ensure technical accuracy and innovation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Project planning is structured written work that software drafts well from established methods.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating biofuel performance specifications to determine feasibility for aerospace applications
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at biofuel performance specifications, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 55 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Evaluate biofuel performance specifications to determine feasibility for aerospace applications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing biofuel specifications against aerospace requirements is analysis software can largely do from published data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Following defined product development processes
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at defined product development processes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2126/03
Source: “Follow defined product development processes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Following a defined process is documented work, though real projects throw up judgement calls.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing tender processes to acquire aviation equipment
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at tender processes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2126/02
Source: “Manage tender processes to acquire aviation equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tender documents, scoring and comparison are structured paperwork software drafts and analyses well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating designs and drawings using Computer Aided Design
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at designs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2126/01, 2126/02
Source: “Create designs and drawings using Computer Aided Design (CAD) software.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (46–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Producing designs and drawings in CAD is skilled software work; tools can generate parts but an engineer still shapes the result.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Designing testing regimes for materials performance evaluations of new and existing products
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at regimes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Design testing regimes for materials performance evaluations of new and existing products.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Designing a testing regime follows published standards and can be drafted digitally, with engineers confirming what actually gets tested.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying technical solutions for project designs using appropriate engineering disciplines
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at technical solutions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Identify technical solutions for project designs using appropriate engineering disciplines.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software suggests plausible technical options, though choosing one that works for a real design still needs an engineer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Visualising projects with CAM systems
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at projects, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2126/02
Source: “Visualise projects with CAM systems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Design software already does much of the modelling, though building a usable model still needs a skilled engineer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Designing manufacturing components using CAD software
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at components, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2126/02
Source: “Design manufacturing components using CAD software.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (46–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Producing component designs in CAD is skilled software work; tools generate parts of it but an engineer shapes the result.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Designing the aesthetics, materials and functionality of components
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at the aesthetics, materials and functionality of components, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 55 · 2126/02
Source: “Design the aesthetics, materials and functionality of components.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can generate options, but judging how a component should look, feel and function stays with designers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Overseeing repair and maintenance programmes
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at repair, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2126/01, 2126/02
Source: “Oversee repair and maintenance programmes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Planning and tracking maintenance programmes is scheduling and reporting, though the work itself happens on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating regulatory advice
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at regulatory advice, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2126/01
Source: “Communicate regulatory advice to clients, teams, suppliers, and professionals in the aerospace industry.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Aviation rules are published and easy to summarise, though clients often want them explained by a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Modifying designs to minimise fuel consumption and pollution
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at designs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2126/01
Source: “Modify designs to minimise fuel consumption and pollution.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 44 out of 100 (37–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Fuel and emissions changes can be modelled computationally, but the design decisions remain expert engineering.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Defining spacecraft integration plans and procedures
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at spacecraft integration plans, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Define spacecraft integration plans and procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 44 out of 100 (37–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Spacecraft integration plans follow structured formats, though the specialist detail is scarce and needs experienced engineers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Liaising with clients to identify their requirements
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at clients, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2126/02
Source: “Liaise with clients to identify their requirements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drawing out what a client actually needs happens in conversation with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Systematicallying improve the detailed design of a piece of electronic equipment
staying human
The ratings behind this row put improve the detailed design of a piece well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 90 · 2126/03
Source: “Systematically improve the detailed design of a piece of electronic equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Refining an electronic design is iterative expert work, partly on the bench with real boards.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Verifying product compatibility with devices
staying human
The ratings behind this row put product compatibility well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 80 · 2126/03
Source: “Verify product compatibility with devices developed by others.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Compatibility checking uses documented interfaces, though confirming it usually needs the real devices connected.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing or modifying designs in collaboration with research personnel
staying human
The ratings behind this row put designs well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 85 · 2126/03
Source: “Develop or modify designs in collaboration with research personnel.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Developing designs alongside research colleagues is analysis and drawing work software supports, with the collaboration staying human.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Coordinating inputs from various disciplines to evaluate optimal design solutions or changes
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles inputs and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Coordinate inputs from various disciplines to evaluate optimal design solutions or changes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The trade-off analysis can be assisted, but getting different specialist teams to agree is live human work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing advice and guidance, identify and addressing issues and refining project approaches
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles advice and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2126/02
Source: “Provide advice and guidance, identify and address issues, and refine project approaches.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (23–47 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advice can be drafted, but steering a project through issues depends on live discussion with the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Discussing project requirements with clients to ensure technical specifications and performance
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles project requirements and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2126/03
Source: “Discuss project requirements with clients to ensure technical specifications and performance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Requirements can be written up automatically, but drawing them out of a client is a live conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Applying the principles of science and technology to create aircraft
staying human
The ratings behind this row put the principles of science well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 90 · 2126/01
Source: “Apply the principles of science and technology to create aircraft, components and support equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software helps with calculations and drafts, but turning science into a working aircraft still relies on experienced engineers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supporting engineering for mission-specific and R&D projects
staying human
The ratings behind this row put mission-specific well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Support engineering for mission-specific and R&D projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (20–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: General engineering support spans modelling and paperwork software helps with, plus hands-on project work it cannot do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Communicating effectively with team members and colleagues
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles team members and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2126/02
Source: “Communicate effectively with team members and colleagues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Day-to-day communication with colleagues works because people know and trust each other.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing existing technology in collaboration with colleagues
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles technology and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2126/03
Source: “Develop existing technology in collaboration with colleagues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Improving existing technology can be modelled, but the work runs through constant discussion with colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Modifying designs to improve safety features
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for designs, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2126/01
Source: “Modify designs to improve safety features.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Safety-driven design changes to aircraft need engineering judgement and approval by qualified staff under aviation design rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new instruments and software for spacecraft
staying human
The ratings behind this row put new instruments well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 65 · 2126/01
Source: “Develop new instruments and software for spacecraft.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Building genuinely new spacecraft instruments is original hardware engineering where software only helps at the edges.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Resolving specific technical issues encountered in project development
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specific technical issues, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 2126/01
Source: “Resolve specific technical issues encountered in project development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Technical faults in production are usually diagnosed and fixed by someone with hands on the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing advanced technology to improve aircraft performance and maintenance
staying human
The ratings behind this row put advanced technology well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 50 · 2126/02
Source: “Develop advanced technology to improve aircraft performance and maintenance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Genuinely new aircraft technology is original engineering work where software assists but cannot lead.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Checking the flight performance of new and experimental planes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the flight performance of new and experimental planes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2126/01
Source: “Check the flight performance of new and experimental planes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Flight testing needs aircraft, instruments and crew, though analysing the performance data is largely computational.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring and improving the performance of aircraft
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the performance of aircraft, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2126/01
Source: “Measure and improve the performance of aircraft, components and systems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Measuring performance needs real hardware and test rigs, though analysing and improving the numbers is computational.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Reviewing reports or documentation and inspecting malfunctioning products to diagnose performance problems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: reports, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Review reports or documentation and inspect malfunctioning products to diagnose performance problems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Reading the reports is desk work, but inspecting the broken item means having it in front of you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Communicating effectively with contracting civil engineers
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles contracting civil engineers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 65 · 2126/02
Source: “Communicate effectively with contracting civil engineers, consultants, and clients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working effectively with clients and consulting engineers rests on relationships built through conversation over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Overseeing and projecting manage the production of prototype systems and components to validate and verify functionality and performance of aerospace products
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: manage the production of prototype systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Oversee and project manage the production of prototype systems and components to validate and verify functionality and performance of aerospace products.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Prototype build management means being in the workshop and chasing people as much as planning on paper.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Leading cross-functional project teams
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles cross-functional project teams and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Lead cross-functional project teams.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leading a team across functions rests on trust and personal authority built in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing technical staff working within a team
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles technical staff working within a team and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Manage technical staff working within a team.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Managing technical staff works through day-to-day relationships.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing systems-specific expertise during launch and early operations phases of a mission
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles systems-specific expertise during launch and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 50 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Provide systems-specific expertise during launch and early operations phases of a mission.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Live mission support depends on deep familiarity with one spacecraft and fast judgement alongside the operations team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Directing and managing a team of engineers in project execution
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles a team of engineers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2126/02
Source: “Direct and manage a team of engineers in project execution.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leading a team of engineers depends on relationships and judgement built with those specific people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Guaranteeing consistent product performance in specified operating environments
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: consistent product performance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2126/03
Source: “Guarantee consistent product performance in specified operating environments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Proving a product performs consistently means physical testing in real conditions, and aerospace approval rules expect qualified engineers behind the evidence.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring and enforcing compliance with safety rules and regulations in a workplace
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: compliance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2126/03
Source: “Monitor and enforce compliance with safety rules and regulations in a workplace.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Enforcing safety rules means being visible in the workplace and challenging people directly, which needs a person there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing technical expertise and team leadership in support of integration and testing at subsystem
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: technical expertise, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2126/01, 2126/03
Source: “Provide technical expertise and team leadership in support of integration and testing at subsystem, spacecraft and ground level across a range of projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Integration and testing support means being in the cleanroom and leading a team through real hardware problems.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising a team of engineers and technicians
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: a team of engineers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2126/01, 2126/02, 2126/03
Source: “Supervise a team of engineers and technicians.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising a team depends on trust and judgement built with those people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Creating models and prototypes for product development
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: models, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2126/02
Source: “Create models and prototypes for product development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Making a physical model or prototype means cutting, building and handling materials.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing products to ensure they meet specifications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2126/02
Source: “Test products to ensure they meet specifications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Testing products against specifications means handling real items in a test setup, with the recording easily automated.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing mechanical and electrical systems to ensure aircraft safety
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: mechanical and electrical systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 2126/02
Source: “Test mechanical and electrical systems to ensure aircraft safety.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Testing real mechanical and electrical systems means connecting to the actual aircraft hardware.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Investigating aircraft accidents
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: aircraft accidents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2126/01
Source: “Investigate aircraft accidents.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Accident investigation starts with wreckage and physical evidence, and formal investigations rest on appointed, accountable investigators.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning and conducting scheduled maintenance and inspections within allotted times to ensure aircraft safety and integrity
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: scheduled maintenance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2126/01
Source: “Plan and conduct scheduled maintenance and inspections within allotted times to ensure aircraft safety and integrity.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Aircraft maintenance and inspection is hands-on work by licensed engineers on the actual aircraft.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting mechanical plant/machinery/equipment, including pressure vessels, power presses and lifting equipment, to ensure fitness for purpose
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: mechanical plant/machinery/equipment, including pressure vessels, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 55 · 2126/02
Source: “Inspect mechanical plant/machinery/equipment, including pressure vessels, power presses, and lifting equipment, to ensure fitness for purpose.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Statutory inspection of pressure vessels and lifting gear means a competent person physically examining the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising the installation of engines
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the installation of engines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2126/01
Source: “Supervise the installation of engines, instruments, and other equipment in aircraft.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising installation work means being on the hangar floor watching what is actually fitted.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising the assembly of airframes according to design specifications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the assembly of airframes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2126/01
Source: “Supervise the assembly of airframes according to design specifications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Airframe assembly supervision happens on the shop floor with eyes on the physical build.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting products to ensure they meet specifications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2126/01, 2126/02
Source: “Inspect products to ensure they meet specifications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking that delivered products match the specification means physically examining them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing regular checks and maintenance on equipment to ensure operational functionality
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: regular checks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2126/01
Source: “Perform regular checks and maintenance on equipment to ensure operational functionality.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking and maintaining equipment means physically working on it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £55,800a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
People doing this job: 41,700in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: mathematical modelling software in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: applying mathematical modelling software to solve complex engineering problems and analysing engineering data to determine feasibility and cost of aerospace products. What it cannot do is be answerable: tests need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Applying mathematical modelling software to solve complex engineering problems is going; conducting tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety is not.

So, given all that: 36% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 21% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 42% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 86 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding: your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes: about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (conducting tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles conducting tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to aerospace engineers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was mechanical engineers (professional): only about 4% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 36/64: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “conduct tests on aircraft components to ensure performance and safety”, and let the exposed end go.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Mechanical engineers (professional)
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “guarantee consistent product performance in specified operating environments”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 4% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Architects
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “lead cross-functional project teams”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 3% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £47,143 against your £55,839, 15.6% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Construction project managers and related professionals
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “manage projects within agreed timescales and budget”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 3% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £47,665 against your £55,839, 14.6% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 36% of its task weight, across 86 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Aerospace Engineers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Aerospace Engineers, Agricultural Engineers, Computer Hardware Engineers, Electronics Engineers, Except Computer, Marine Engineers and Naval Architects and Mechanical Engineers. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for aerospace engineers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 36% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for aerospace engineers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for aerospace engineers launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for aerospace engineers yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for aerospace engineers existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for aerospace engineers launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Aerospace engineers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 86 official task statements scored for Aerospace engineers (United Kingdom, SOC 2126), 36% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 44 out of 100 (range 38–51, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Aerospace engineers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain reports” (93/100, very high); “Summarise scientific and engineering principles in an easy to understand manner” (85/100, very high); “Compile test reports and manage test data and results for development and verification” (81/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Aerospace engineers” stay human?: About 42% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Perform regular checks and maintenance on equipment to ensure operational functionality” (0/100, minimal); “Inspect products to ensure they meet specifications” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise the assembly of airframes according to design specifications” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Aerospace engineers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 36% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 42% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Aerospace engineers calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 86 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
2 rows are marked low confidence, so treat them as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
22 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.